NIRANJAN PIPALIA Vs. HINDUSTHAN STEEL WORKS CONSTRUCTION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been made by Niranjan Pipalia as sole proprietor of his firm as referred to in the petition praying for issue of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to withdraw, recall and/or cancel purported order dated 26/11/1992, whereby the respondent No. 1 intimated the petitioner that the order dated 19/11/1992 is thereby cancelled.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 M/s. Hindusthan Steel Works Construction Limited, which is a Government of India undertaking, placed an order bearing No. SP/HSCL/656/DSP/SPI/Instruments (F)/92/S-1858 dated 19/11/1992 for supply of different instruments, at erection sites of Centre Plant No. l, combined package, at 'TSB Durgapur' and for supervision during erection testing and commissioning. By the said order dated 19/11/1992 the respondent No. 1 intimated to the petitioner that the respondent No. 1 was pleased to award the work of supply of different instruments at erection site of Centre Plant No. 1 at a total costs of Rs. 4,14,09,495.55 P., including West Bengal Sales Tax packing, forwarding, insurance as per the petitioner's offer and subsequent confirmations. The detailed schedule of items, price and term and conditions were enclosed as Annexures to the said order. The petitioner was requested to acknowledge receipt of the order and sign on all the pages as token of acceptance. The detailed description of items with price, the detailed price schedule for spares, the commercial terms and conditions, the original offer dated 27/11/1991 and the further correspondence and minutes of meeting were all Annexures to the said order. It is not in dispute that the petitioner signed on all the pages of the order as token of his acceptance.

(3.) Earlier to that, by letter dated 22/11/1991 the respondent No. 1 Hindusthan Steel Construction Limited (hereinafter also referred to as HSCL) issued an invitation to tender containing the detailed technical specifications and commercial terms for supply of different instruments. The offers were to be submitted by 6-12-1991 in a sealed cover. The petitioner submitted his offer by letter dated 27/11/1991. By letter dated 15/01/1992 the petitioner was invited to attend a meeting to be held on 24/01/1992 for techno commercial discussions. It appears that a meeting was in fact held on 7/02/1992 where several parties were present. The parties present included representatives of different parties making offers as also the representatives of the respondent No. 1 and/or its purchasers. No particulars of the offers received from other parties have been disclosed to this court, by the respondent No. l, in these proceedings. In the said meeting various technical matters were discussed and clarified and confirmed between the parties. The respondent No. 1 also wrote to some of the petitioners principals and two of the principals of the petitioner replied to the respondent No. 1 asking the respondent No. 1 to contract the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 required the petitioner to extend the validity of the period or offer from time to time and the petitioner did so from time to time. The case of the petitioner is that negotiations were going on in the meantime as between the parties. The correspondence annexed to the order shows that the petitioner attended a meeting with the members of the Tender Committee on 1/07/1992 and thereafter by letter dated 2/07/1992 he confirmed various matters as discussed in the meeting with the members of the Tender Committee. It appears from another letter dated 7/07/1992 that there was another meeting with the Tender Committee members prior to the said on or letter dated 7/07/1992 and said letter of confirmation of matters discussed with the Tender Committee was issued by the petitioner.